Tag: Federalism

How About a Federalized Iraq?

I am slowly returning to my main focus…..conflicts and their resolution….it has been a long thoroughly hilarious 6 months…..now back to work.

We invade then occupied Iraq in 2003….after the major hostilities were over there were some that were calling for a federal republic for Iraq….among those was VP Joe Biden…..most people scoffed at the idea for various reasons…..I for one was not convinced that it would be a good idea….but as time went on I came around to the idea.

Iraqis did not have much input back in those days….was going to be up to the US and its allies to decide the course for a new government for Iraq.

My op-ed on this subject are pressed below…….

Source: Rethink Iraqi Federalism – In Saner Thought

I bring up this bit of Iraqi history for good reason….it seems that the tribes of Anbar province are thinking that federalism would be a good idea at this time…..

For much of Iraq, the ISIS war is seen as just a continuation of the sectarian warfare between Sunni Arabs and Shi’ite Arabs which has raged in the country since the US occupation. Iraq’s Shi’ite-dominated government has long sought to dispel this notion by recruiting Sunni allies.

They haven’t had much success, but the Sunni Arab tribal factions they have managed to recruit are seen as key allies against ISIS. At the same time, the tribal leaders warn that Iraq needs massive reforms, not just a military victory, to end these conflicts.

The Lions of the Tigris faction are urging federalization as a solution to the ongoing tensions. They are far from the first to suggest this, but as allies in the current war, they may have the government’s ear more than some others.

(antiwar.com)

With the divides in the country…Kurds, Sunni and Shia, federalism may be the only way to bring stability in Iraq again.

But because it has worked well for the US does not mean that it will be so for Iraq…..there are so many other situations developing in the country that could prove hazardous to the federal experiment……problems like the Assyrians, Chaldeans and Yazidis…just to mention a few.

Searching For Pandora’s Box

I do a lot of research in the field of international relations most specifically in the field of conflict, causes and resolutions…..I have read many papers that deal with the transitional state of Iraq and Syria…..I have even covered some of it here on IST…….

With all the violence and destruction in the Middle east I have read some papers that talking about a transitional phase for the two countries….. There are always plans within plans….th…

Source: Is Iraq/Syria In Transition? – In Saner Thought

But the most prominent solution that is becoming ever more popular is the possibility of some sort of federal system for the countries…..the argument is that it would provide each of the “entities” within the birders some form autonomy and security….basically a similar plan as that of Iraq in the early days of the occupation….thus were quickly abandoned with the hope of saving Iraq as a whole nation not isolated city states of the Greek past.

At first I was down with the idea for Iraq……but after watching the events unfold I quickly let go of that delusion.

For five years a civil war, a bloody civil war, has been raging in Syria and now there seems to be a few academics that are liking the idea of a federal system for Syria as a way to stop all the violence…..

I will admit that anything to achieve peace for the people of Syria would be welcomed….but a federal system is not that solution……

I recently read an excellent piece written by Ramzy Baroud…….

It is safe to say that after five years of war in Syria, the conflict is entering a new phase. Not a political resolution, but a grand political game that could divide the country into several entities, along sectarian lines.

If that takes place, it will bode badly, not only for Syria, but also the whole region. Division would become the buzzword according to which all current conflicts could expect to be settled.

Source: Federalism is a Pandora’s Box; if Syria Succumbs to It, Others Will Follow – Politics for the People | Politics for the People

This will lead to a relative quiet time in the Middle East….but after that it will explode again and possibly worse than today……and yes that is possible.

There is an answer to this problem….but I do not believe that a federal system is that answer.

Could One Be Better Than Two?

College of Political Knowledge

Subject: Government/Federalism

I have been watching the actions of our Congress both Senate and House, since the Clinton days and have seen just how dysfunctional the institution really is, at least in the near past…….the partisanship has made the organization a non-workable endeavor……its approval rating is dismal…..its bill success rate is in the toilet…….and most of the players appear to be nothing short of clowns in a circus……..

The next question should be….how can we as a nation find a way for our legislative branch to function more efficiently?  Or is it possible at all to make it an institution worth saving?

One idea that was floated during the founding era, especially by Franklin, was a unicameral legislative system as opposed to what we have now, bicameral……

Franklin wrote Queries and Remarks Respecting Alterations in the Constitution of Pennsylvania to record his opposition to bicameralism.

The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants, who club [combine] their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important ends of Civil Society, and the personal Securities of Life and Liberty, these remain the same in every Member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent [wealthy], whatever Difference Time, Chance, or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations, I am sorry to See the Signs this Paper I have been considering [the proposed Pennsylvania Constitution] affords, of a Disposition among some of our People to commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a predominancy [superior power] in Government, a Choice peculiar to themselves in one half the Legislature to be proudly called the UPPER House, and the other Branch, chosen by the Majority of the People, degraded by the denomination [name] of the LOWER; and giving to this Upper a Permanency of four Years, and but two to the lower.

Franklin felt that every member of society should have an equal say in the legislative branch of government. He disagreed with the theory of bicameralism that favored one chamber for the wealthy and another chamber for the rest of society.  (version can be found on Yahoo Answers)……….

There are benefits to unicameralism…..can almost hear the butts slamming shut!

1. No Duplication of Work-

Law making is done through a process. If there is one house the process is followed once only. There is no repetition of the same process. So time is saved, money is saved and energy as well.

2. No Hindrance-

The people’s will is reflected in the single chamber and there is no check on progressive legislation by any reactionary or conservative second chamber. If the legislature is bicameral in nature there will be differences in the outlook of the two houses.

3. Singleness of Purpose-

When the legislature consists of only one house, singleness of purpose will be maintained. Hence, there will be no confusion in the law making process. Benjamin Franklin said: “Legislative body divided into two branches is like a carriage drawn by one horse in front and one behind pulling in opposite direction.”

4. No Divided Responsibility-

It adds to the quality and dignity of the legislators by avoiding conflict between two chambers. The single chamber is responsible for all legislative matters. There is no divided responsibility as is found in a bicameral legislature.

5. More Representative and less Expensive-

The unicameral legislature can be composed of members who are the true representatives of the people. The composition can be simple. Because it is unicameral, double expenditure for maintenance of two houses is not necessary.

The benefits sound too good to be true…….it would streamline the process and as stated it would be less expensive, something we all should aspire to in these days of looming austerity……so I return to the beginning question……Could one house be better than two?

Input please……….

There Are Idiots And Then There Is Mississippi

I have not been the kindest person to the Mississippi state government, my state, they pretend and promise so much and deliver nothing……I guess we could say that about a lot of politicians but Mississippi can take the prize…….every politician in the state ran on an education promise and it has been that way for 40 years and yet the state still has one of the worse educational records in the country and yet the voter keeps believing the lie…….maybe that is a good indictment of their educational standards.

The latest session just started and has already made the news……

By Jerry Mitchell, Clarion Ledge

More than a half century ago, Mississippi created a state Sovereignty Commission to block enforcement of federal laws.

Now two key state lawmakers are introducing legislation to attempt to do much the same thing. House Bill 490 would create a committee to help neutralize federal laws and regulations “outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the United States Constitution.”

Robert McElvaine, professor of history at Millsaps College, said all this bill will accomplish is to put Mississippi up for ridicule. “ ‘The Neutralization of Federal Law’?” he said. “I am astounded to see such a measure introduced in the 21st century. Do the authors of the bill see Mississippi as part of the United States?”

He pointed out that the issue of state sovereignty “was settled by a terrible war 150 years ago as well as by numerous Supreme Court decisions.”

Read More…

Are you really surprised?  No matter what law is enacted in DC there will always be a movement to circumvent it by the states and always it is under the pretext of the 10th amendment…….a contrarian’s favorite part of the Constitution.  Really does not matter which political group is in power….it is always the 10th that is used to justify any and all opposition to Washington…….

But wait!  There is more from  the great state of Mississippi…..

(Newser) – Mississippi has officially ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution—a mere 148 years after the amendment outlawing slavery cleared Congress and was sent to state legislatures for approval. Mississippi’s legislature voted to ratify the amendment in 1995, but it never became official because the state never notified the United States Archivist, the Clarion-Ledger reports. The oversight was cleared up after a doctor saw the movie Lincoln and did some research into when different states had ratified the slavery ban.

The doctor—a recent immigrant from India—and a colleague contacted state officials, who sent in the paperwork to finally make ratification official. The next-to-last state to ratify the 13th Amendment, Kentucky, did so in 1976. “We’re very deliberate in our state. We finally got it right,” says state Sen. Hillman Frazier, the Democrat who introduced the resolution to ratify the amendment in 1995. It passed the Mississippi Senate and House unanimously, with some lawmakers abstaining.

Better late than never….I guess…….I bet you thought it was a done deal…the banning of slavery……..now you see why I say, “if you visit Mississippi set your watch back 150 years”…….goes to show what happens when no one is watching….

Turn The States Loose!

College Of Political Knowledge

Since the election of ’08 we have had numerous attempts or perceived attempts, if you like, to limit some of the rights that we have as Americans…..like voting, electing officials, civil rights, on and on……and recently Americans have had an outlet, besides the internet, for their whining and dislike for the direction of the country…….that outlet has been the site where they can partition the government for certain things….the most popular has been the secession partitions….Texas alone has over 100,000 signatures and all 50 states has one also….so it is not an isolated occurrence…..

There are federal laws concerning many of what we like to call rights….but in the recent past the states have started limiting these rights……while the states cannot make them illegal they can, once they stack state legislatures they can severely limit the access to these rights…..want examples?  FINE!  Abortion, whether one approves or not, it is still not illegal by federal law……more?  Marijuana…..federal law against but states are staring the process to de-criminalize it……..voting–states are attempting to regulate who gets elected by using some obscure crap about voter fraud–there is NO rampant voter fraud!  Or states that can eliminate elected officials at the whim of the governor……there are more about for the brevity of this post, you get the idea……

Since states want to control these federal rights and want to undermine the federal government I say there is a way…….since the Tea Party came to power they have stubbornly insisted on massive spending cuts….not so much to make the the government more stable but rather to undermine the federal government to the point that is is nothing more than a group or people that get paid to do nothing but show up once in awhile in the capital…….like I stated previously…..there is a way to do this and make the whiners and the small government people happy……..

Professor, what could that simple answer be?

Articles Of Confederation–return to the beginning and re-install the AOC……but why would this make those people I mentioned happy?

Well, let’s look at the Articles

  1. Establishes the name of the confederation with these words: “The Style of this confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America.'”
  2. Asserts the sovereignty of each state, except for the specific powers delegated to the confederation government, i.e. “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”
  3. Not being sovereign, it does not call the United States of America a “nation” or “government,” but instead says, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”
  4. But to instill a national feeling, “[t]he better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union,” it establishes equal treatment and freedom of movement  for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding “paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.” All these people are entitled to equal rights established by the state into which he travels. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited  to and tried in the state in which the crime was committed.
  5. Allocates one vote in the Congress of the Confederation (the “United States in Congress Assembled”) to each state, which is entitled to a delegation of between two and seven members. Members of Congress are appointed by state legislatures. Also, individuals may not serve more than three out of any six years.
  6. Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign political or commercial relations and to declare war. No state or official may accept foreign gifts or titles, and granting any title of nobility is forbidden to all. States are restrained from forming sub-national groups. No state may tax or interfere with treaty stipulations already proposed . No state may engage in war, without permission of Congress, unless invaded or that is imminent on the frontier; no state may maintain a peace-time standing army or navy, unless infested by pirates, but every State is required to keep ready, a well-regulated (meaning well trained), disciplined, and equipped militia, with sufficient public stores of a due number of field pieces, tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
  7. Whenever an army is raised for common defense, colonels and military ranks below colonel will be named by the state legislatures.
  8. Expenditures by the United States of America will be paid by funds raised by state legislatures, and apportioned to the states based on the real property values of each.
  9. Defines the sole and exclusive right and power of the United States in Congress assembled to determine peace and war; to exchange ambassadors; to enter into treaties and alliances, with some provisos; to establish rules for deciding all cases of captures or prizes on land or water; to grant letters of marque and reprisal (documents authorizing privateers) in times of peace; to appoint courts for the trial of pirates and crimes committed on the high seas; to establish courts for appeals in all cases of captures, but no member of Congress may be appointed a judge; to set weights and measures (including coins), and for Congress to serve as a final court for disputes between states.

I think these would make the whiners happy….they could run roughshod over their constituents at will…….they would be in complete control of others lives and rights….but also would mean the each state would have to bear the brunt of the costs for disasters, education, etc……..but they would NO longer be accountable to a central government…….and is not that what all these toads really want?

Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government’s power was kept quite limited. The Confederation Congress could make decisions, but lacked enforcement powers. Implementation of most decisions, including modifications to the Articles, required unanimous approval of all thirteen state legislatures.

States would be in total control of the destiny of the state as well as its residents……now that is what they really want!  If that is what they want….I say screw them….let them go…….

Personally, I think it is a damn silly idea……but I bet we can find a bunch of people that will like it……whatcha think?

Is Impartiality A Must?

We all know, that is if we ever took a civics class that there are three branches of the government that our Founders  intended, Executive, Legislative and Judicial…..and the later has to be the “referee” that kept the peace and be the final word on debates among the first two…..is that about the way you learned it?

We have all heard the song about “activist judges” whenever there is a ruling that some do not agree with…….but that aside should judges be impartial?  Of course they should!

By now we have been informed that SCOTUS will hear the case of repealing health care or as sometime during the 2012 election cycle…interesting no?  But wait!  There is more…….

The justices agreed to hear the suit; indeed, a landmark 5 1/2-hour argument is expected in March, and the outcome is likely to further roil the 2012 presidential race, which will be in full swing by the time the court’s decision is released.

The lawyer who will stand before the court and argue that the law should be thrown out is likely to be Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration.

Clement’s law firm, Bancroft PLLC, was one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles.  Another firm that sponsored the dinner, Jones Day, represents one of the trade associations that challenged the law, the National Federation of Independent Business.

Another sponsor was pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc, which has an enormous financial stake in the outcome of the litigation.  The dinner was held at a Washington hotel hours after the court’s conference over the case.  In attendance was, among others, Mitch McConnell, the Senate’s top Republican and an avowed opponent of the healthcare law.

The featured guests at the dinner?   Scalia and Thomas.

Is there a Code of Conduct of judges?   Canon 4C, which states, “A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event.“

Does anyone else see a problem in the making here?

If Chief Justice Roberts does NOT make these people recuse themselves then there should be a massive recall on the justices in question….including the Chief Justice!

What A Silly Notion!

Once again, my days of Zen are interrupted by the extreme silliness of politics…….

Today is 17 September and is officially Constitution Day….personally, this is the day that we should celebrate with a national holiday……why?  It is the day that the Constitutional Convention signed the US Constitution into being…….it should be celebrated because it brought into existence a unique form of government that has been copied world wide….it deserves a day more so than some of the ones we have now….but that is a debate for another day…….

Why do I bring this up?  There seems to be some that are calling for the scraping of our Constitution and the writing of a new one, a more modern one, a more up to date one…….here is one of those people……http://bit.ly/lxHzYC

What do you think?

Personally, I think it is just plain silly!  Why?  Can you imagine that convention?  Our politicians cannot agree on anything substantial and we want them to update our constitution?  (pause here for the inevitable laughter)……can you imagine the silliness that would ensure trying to make a document that effects ALL citizens?  Can you imagine of the absurdities that extremists would want to include in a new constitution?  Look at the total waste of time and effort in Washington today….would a constitutional convention be any different?

Has the Magna Carta been “updated”?

You think we have a theater of the absurd now in Washington….but it would look like statesmanlike debate compared to the totally ridiculous of a constitutional convention….we would not need Comedy Central anymore, the convention would foot that bill to a tee.

2011 Anal-Ocity #7

I know most of my readers think I have a hard on for the GOP and conservs….and yes I can be cruel to those I think are morons….but it by NO means eliminates the Dems from my wrath…..the problem is that they do not make as many factual mistakes as the Repubs….but they can be as ignorant as anyone else…..let me illustrate….

Every 5th grader knows that the US has a 3 branch style of government…..Executive, Legislative and Judicial….common knowledge….if not it should be!

But recently a well known Dem. leader, Chuck Schumer of NY, said in an interview on the SOTU address on CNN ……….

I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strongly they feel — you know, we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a president. And all three of us are going to have to come together

A very ignorant thing to say, especially when you are a representative of the people and do not know the basics of our system…like the 3 branches of government……
Sen. Schumer….welcome to the Anal-Ocities!